loneranger
Well-known
I am looking for a high resolution low contrast lens, which one of the above would you recommend? Also, if you have both lenses, how are they similar or different?
Thanks
Thanks
Leica 35/3.5 summaron vs. Canon 35/2.8
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 30
- Views 14K
Bingley
Veteran
There was a thread on these two lenses several years ago. It didn't generate much discussion then. I've not owned a Summaron, but it is a highly reputed lens if you're after a vintage look. The Canon (which I do own) is probably equal to the Summaron, but gets much less attention. It's a high resolution/low contrast lens, and quite tiny in the original chrome version. For color photos, it gives a slightly desaturated look. It's a terrific little lens that will probably cost less than a Summaron in like condition.
Brian Legge
Veteran
I have a Summaron 3.5 and just picked up a Canon 35mm 2.8.
The Summaron was great but every time I took it out I was really paranoid about the front element. The lens cap came off in a bag a few times and there are no threads for a filter (I have no experience with a clamp on adapter to be fair). The Canon is almost as small, faster and has threads so I figured I would give it a try.
I'll try to shoot a few black and white comparison shots this roll. I should note that while haze and scratch free, the Summaron does have some debris between the elements. It is definitely sharp though - it doesn't seem to impact the photos I've taken with it.
The Summaron was great but every time I took it out I was really paranoid about the front element. The lens cap came off in a bag a few times and there are no threads for a filter (I have no experience with a clamp on adapter to be fair). The Canon is almost as small, faster and has threads so I figured I would give it a try.
I'll try to shoot a few black and white comparison shots this roll. I should note that while haze and scratch free, the Summaron does have some debris between the elements. It is definitely sharp though - it doesn't seem to impact the photos I've taken with it.
Last edited:
je2a3
je
I have the Serenar 35/2.8 and the M3 goggled Summaron 35/3.5. I like both and not sure if I'm doing justice to either lens. 🙂
Larry H-L
Well-known
There is also the very tiny Canon 35mm f3.2, equally nice.
FPjohn
Well-known
I have both and consider them equivalent: sharp, moderate contrast. The Canon is smaller(!) than the goggled Summaron.
yours
FPJ
yours
FPJ
Nokton48
Veteran
I had a V1 35mm F2.8 Summaron M-mount until recently, really liked it alot.
Now I am looking for a clean late 35mm F2.8 Black Canon, I'm hoping it's similar.
I suspect it is very similar.
Now I am looking for a clean late 35mm F2.8 Black Canon, I'm hoping it's similar.
I suspect it is very similar.
loneranger
Well-known
So it seems like a draw between the two in terms of sharpness/contrast, in which case the canon would have a slight edge because it is slighly faster and has a filter thread.
Can anyone comment on the canon wide open, I know the corners must be bad, but is the center still sharp wide open?
thanks for your input
Can anyone comment on the canon wide open, I know the corners must be bad, but is the center still sharp wide open?
thanks for your input
Bingley
Veteran
I don't have any examples uploaded that I can easily show you, but the Canon 35 is not that bad wide open. On a good sample, you'll find it sharp in the center, but not all that soft in the corners.
peterm1
Veteran
I do not have the Canon but do have the Summaron. In fact I have two - the late LTM one and the optically identical early one designed for the M3 (without goggles - you needed a separate finder).
I like it but be aware that a common problem with these is their tendancy to develop a film on interior elements and this produces flare and even lower contrast. If you buy one budget for a CLA unless you can be absolutely certain it has already had one.
I like it but be aware that a common problem with these is their tendancy to develop a film on interior elements and this produces flare and even lower contrast. If you buy one budget for a CLA unless you can be absolutely certain it has already had one.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
The cleaning of the elements can be carried out in a few minutes. Once I was permitted to look when my repairman (mr. Scherpenborg from Nijmegen) did the job. It certainly did not take longer than 15 minutes.
Erik.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
my brother lives in nijmegen, is mr scherpenberg expensive? otherwise I'd ask him to clean my M2 finders when I manage to visit some time.
Dralowid
Michael
Over they years very small amounts of lubricant seem to migrate or evaporate from the aperture mechanism and settle as a misty deposit on the faces of elements adjacent to that mechanism. WITH THE RIGHT TOOLS this is easy to rectify but the Summaron is quite small and it is also possible that a retaining ring may have become seized. Beware.
One lens that is particularly prone to this problem is the red scale Elmar...I know not why.
Michael
One lens that is particularly prone to this problem is the red scale Elmar...I know not why.
Michael
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Scherpenborg. Just call him and ask. He speaks German and English. He is not expensive and very good, he has over 50 years of experience. He has lots of spare parts etc.
You can drop me a pm and I can put you in contact with him.
Erik.
Last edited:
pagpow
Well-known
loneranger,
You might find this Sean Reid piece featuring the Canon 35 2.8 on the RD1 of interest.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
My best to Tonto.
Giorgio
You might find this Sean Reid piece featuring the Canon 35 2.8 on the RD1 of interest.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/rd-1-lens.shtml
My best to Tonto.
Giorgio
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Interesting thread - I have a LTM Summaron (f3.5) and just bought a Canon f2.8, so will be able to see the differences first hand soon.
So far, the Summaron has proved to be a great lens - small, sharp and with good coverage across the whole neg. I had a f1.5 Canon for a while, but really ddn't like the corner effects, so swapped it for a Summicron vIV - seemed a good deal at the time.
Aprops of nothing - I once met the original Lone Ranger when I was a kid. First time I had ever seen a California suntan, as a product of the grim UK climate, i could hardly believe that people came in that shade of orange... 😉
So far, the Summaron has proved to be a great lens - small, sharp and with good coverage across the whole neg. I had a f1.5 Canon for a while, but really ddn't like the corner effects, so swapped it for a Summicron vIV - seemed a good deal at the time.
Aprops of nothing - I once met the original Lone Ranger when I was a kid. First time I had ever seen a California suntan, as a product of the grim UK climate, i could hardly believe that people came in that shade of orange... 😉
Erik van Straten
Veteran
loneranger
Well-known
Dude, I am the original lone ranger on this forum!
john neal
fallor ergo sum
Sir, I'm sure you are, but you are (probably) not Clayton Moore, which was who I met (remember the TV series??)
Frontman
Well-known
The coating on the inside of the Summaron is fragile, which I learned the hard way, so it must be cleaned with grest care. Make sure the coatings are good on any lens you buy, don't get one unless the seller will let you return the lens if there are any problems.
